Recent research on subliminal persuasion has documented effects primarily when people have a preexisting need related to the target of influence. Based on the situated inference model of priming effects (Loersch & Payne, 2011), we propose a novel matching mechanism and describe how it expands the circumstances under which subliminal primes can produce persuasive effects, doing so without a consideration of preexisting need states. In two studies, we alter the desirability of various products by selecting subliminal primes that address the basic questions participants consider while judging product desirability. Subliminal persuasion depends on the precise match between the subliminal primes and the question under consideration. These results are evident when the question participants consider varies naturally due to the type of product that is judged, and when the core question is directly manipulated by altering the aspect of a product on which participants focus.
BarghJ. A.ChartrandT. (2000). Studying the mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In ReisH.JuddC. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 253–285). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BermeitingerC.GoelzR.JohrN.NeumannM.EckerU. K. H.DoerrR. (2009). The hidden persuaders break into the tired brain. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 320–326.
3.
BrehmJ. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 384–389. doi:1957-04251-00110.1037/h0041006
4.
CousinsN. (1957, October 5). Smudging the subconscious. Saturday Review, 20–21.
5.
DeMarreeK. G.LoerschC. (2009). Who am I and who are you? Priming and the influence of self versus other focused attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 440–443. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.10.009
Harmon-JonesE.Harmon-JonesC.FearnM.SigelmanJ. D.JohnsonP. (2008). Left frontal cortical activation and spreading of alternatives: Tests of the action-based model of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1–15. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.1
8.
HarrisP. B.SachauD. (2005). Is cleanliness next to godliness? The role of housekeeping in impression formation. Environment and Behavior, 37, 81–101.
9.
HigginsE. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York: Guilford Press.
10.
JefferisV. E.FazioR. H. (2008). Accessibility as input: The use of construct accessibility as information to guide behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1144–1150.
11.
KarremansJ. C.StroebeW.ClausJ. (2006). Beyond Vicary's fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 792–798.
12.
KawakamiK.PhillsC. E.SteeleJ. R.DovidioJ. F. (2007). (Close) distance makes the heart grow fonder: Improving implicit racial attitudes and interracial interactions through approach behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 957–971. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.957
13.
KrosnickJ. A.BetzA. L.JussimL. J.LynnA. R. (1992). Subliminal conditioning of attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 152–162. doi:10.1177/0146167292182006
14.
LoerschC.McCaslinM. J.PettyR. E. (2011). Exploring the impact of social judgeability concerns on the interplay of associative and deliberative attitude processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1029–1032. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.024
15.
LoerschC.PayneB. K. (2011). The situated inference model of priming: An integrative account of construal, behavior, and goal priming. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 234–252. doi:10.1177/1745691611406921.
16.
LoerschC.PayneB. K. (2012). On mental contamination: The role of (mis)attribution in behavior priming. Social Cognition, 30, 241–252.
17.
MartinL. L.AbendT.SedikidesC.GreenJ. D. (1997). How would it feel if … ? Mood as input to a role fulfillment evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 242–253.
18.
MartinL. L.WardD. W.AcheeJ. W.WyerR. S. (1993). Mood as input: People have to interpret the motivational implications of their moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 317–326.
19.
MonahanJ. L.MurphyS. T.ZajoncR. B. (2000). Subliminal mere exposure: Specific, general, and diffuse effects. Psychological Science, 11, 462–466. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00289
20.
MeyerD. E.SchvaneveldtW. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234.
21.
PettyR. E.FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T.PriesterJ. R. (1996). Understanding data when interactions are present or hypothesized. Psychological Science, 7, 247–252.
22.
PettyR. E.WheelerS. C.BizerG. Y. (2000). Attitude functions and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach to matched versus mismatched messages. In MaioG. R.OlsonJ. M. (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 133–162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
PackardV. (1957). The hidden persuaders. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
24.
PratkanisA. R.GreenwaldG. (1988). Recent perspectives on unconscious processing: Still no marketing applications. Psychology & Marketing, 5, 337–353.
25.
RosnowR. L.RosenthalR. (1991). If you’re looking at the cell means, you’re not looking at only the interaction (unless all main effects are zero). Psychological Bulletin, 110, 574–576. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.3.574
26.
RozinP.FallonA. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94, 23–41. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.23
27.
SchwarzN.CloreG. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Social psychology. Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 385–407). New York, NY: Guilford.
28.
StrahanE. J.SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P. (2002). Subliminal priming and persuasion: Striking while the iron is hot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 556–568.
29.
VeltkampM.AartsH.CustersR. (2008). On the emergence of deprivation-reducing behaviors: Subliminal priming of behavior representations turns deprivation into motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 866–873.
30.
VeltkampM.CustersR.AartsH. (2011). Motivating consumer behavior by subliminal conditioning in the absence of basic needs: Striking even while the iron is cold. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 49–56. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.09.011
31.
VerwijmerenT.KarremansJ. C.StroebeW.WigboldusD. H. (2011). The workings and limits of subliminal advertising: The role of habits. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 206–213.
32.
WheelerS. C.DeMarreeK. G.PettyR. E. (2007). Understanding the role of the self in prime-to-behavior effects: The active self account. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 234–261.
33.
WheelerS. C.DeMarreeK. G.PettyR. E. (2008). A match made in the laboratory: Persuasion and matches to primed traits and stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1035–1047.
